Is now the time to beatify and canonize Pope Pius XII?
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, June 8, 2007 - Vol. 6, No. 40 | |
Editor's Note: June 7-10, John Allen is covering the annual convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America in Los Angeles, the theme of which is "Bishops in the Church." You can find his daily stories here: http://ncrcafe.org/blog/2682
I want to float a counter-intuitive idea this week, which is that from the point of view of Catholic-Jewish relations, the best thing the Vatican could do right now would be to beatify and canonize Pope Pius XII immediately.
For purposes of fleshing out this argument, I'll prescind from whether Pius XII actually merits sainthood. Instead, I want to remain in the realm of observable facts, which in this case seem to me to be the following:
Assuming those four premises are accurate, it seems to follow that there are only two ways out: Either Catholicism renounces sainthood for Pius XII, or we get it over with. Since the former is unlikely, the latter may be the best available option -- and the sooner, the better. The alternative is allowing an endless cycle of point/counter-point exchanges to coarsen conversation and harden feelings.
These thoughts were stimulated by a speech delivered on Tuesday at Rome's Campidoglio (roughly "City Hall") by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's Secretary of State, meaning the number two official in the church after Pope Benedict XVI. Bertone spoke during the launch of a new book by Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli about Pius XII.
The gist of Bertone's address was that Pius has been the victim of a "black legend," and that the wartime pope conducted a policy of "prophecy in action," rather than potentially counter-productive public statements, which saved the lives of countless Nazi victims. All that was clearly understood at the time, Bertone argued, but has been subsequently obscured because of ideological manipulation of Pius' memory.
My translation of Bertone's speech can be found here: http://ncrcafe.org/node/1154
Most observers saw the speech as a "preemptive strike" ahead of beatification. In early May, the Vatican's Congregation for the Cause of Saints voted to approve a "decree of heroic virtue" for Pius XII. If signed by Pope Benedict XVI, the move would leave only the need to document a miracle before Pius can be beatified, and another miracle before canonization. Knowing that beatification will put the question of Pius and the Holocaust back in the headlines, maybe Bertone wanted to redefine the terms of debate, making the question not, "Did he do enough?" but rather, "Has he been the victim of a smear campaign?" Framing it that way would already be a gain for the supporters of Pius.
In any event, the Bertone speech seems a clear signal that sooner or later, beatification is coming.
My unscientific survey of experts and advocates on the Pius XII issue, however, suggests that nothing Bertone said on Tuesday is likely to move opinion. In the end, I suspect Jose Sanchez, emeritus professor at Saint Louis University and author of 2002's Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy (Catholic University Press), has it about right.
"Nothing is going to change," Sanchez told me on Wednesday. "The same arguments will go back and forth. It's going to go on forever. I really have no hope for the future on this one."
* * *
Critics of making Pius XII a saint have reiterated their claim that it's "too soon" for beatification, especially because the Vatican's archives from the period of Pius XII's papacy, 1939 to 1958, are not yet fully open.
"There is not yet enough evidentiary material on either side of the controversy," said Rabbi Yehiel Poupko of Jewish United Fund in Chicago. "Not all the diplomatic pouches between the Vatican and dioceses in Europe are open. The American archives are not open. It's just too soon."
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said much the same thing.
"I wish they'd spend a higher percentage of their time in efforts to open the archives, and less in spinning what they're selectively presenting," Foxman said. "We are willing to withhold our judgment, and the Vatican should withhold its, until scholars have been able to openly examine the material and see what's there."
From a pro-Pius point of view, some believe new evidence could seal the deal for sainthood.
Bertone, for example, suggested that currently restricted archival material could shed new light, pointing to "thousands" of individual cases where the Vatican responded to requests for help from all over Europe, records of which are not available to scholars because they have not yet been catalogued. Those materials, Bertone said, illustrate Pius XII's policy of "action, not lament," meaning behind-the-scenes efforts rather than noisy public statements.
Eugene Fisher, the longtime expert on Jewish-Christian relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, agreed that the "final assessment of historians" would have to wait until "after the archives come out."
I don't for a moment question the sincerity of Poupko, Foxman, Bertone, and Fisher, all of whom I know and respect. Nevertheless, I'm dubious that any material waiting to be discovered in the Vatican archives will do much to alter the basic battle lines over Pius XII.
Consider the following instances of new historical material which have come to light over the last four years alone, and which is arguably far more interesting than anything likely to be left in the Vatican archives, especially after the publication of eleven volumes of material by a team of Jesuit scholars:
Some of this material cuts in favor of Pius, some against him. On balance, these revelations have probably helped his image, if only because the portrayal of the pope in books such as Hitler's Pope was so cartoonishly villainous. None of it, however, has done much to persuade either critics or detractors to reconsider their positions. Given that immobility, why should we hope that that the Vatican archives contain a "magic bullet" that could persuade one side or the other to quit the field?
That's the view of John Conway, an Anglican expert on Pius XII in Canada.
Opening the archives "will not do much to change things," he said. "The evidence is fairly clear from what we've already got. The suggestion that there are documents lurking in the archives which prove conclusively what the Vatican could have done, or would have done under somebody else, just doesn't hold up."
"When the archives are entirely open," Conway said, "we'll be more or less where we are right now."
* * *
In reality, the case against Pius XII is a classic example of an axiom which is not really amenable to empirical falsification. (The same could be said of the case for Pius XII, of course, but by and large its adherents are not the ones clamoring to open the archives.) There are three reasons why this is so.
First, the heart of the indictment is that Pius XII failed to issue a straightforward public denunciation of National Socialism, or an unambiguous public appeal for Christians to rescue Jews. (Again, I prescind from the merits of these charges.) The nature of the case, therefore, depends upon the pope's public record, which is already well known. By definition, nothing contained in the archives about his private views, or his behind-the-scenes action, can bear upon the crux of this charge. His critics are usually willing to concede everything the pope did in private to help people, but they maintain that it does not redeem his failure, in their eyes, to speak out more clearly in public.
Poupko put the charge eloquently:
"If a situation in which six million Jews, of the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth, are marched off to their deaths, is not a moment for public Christian witness, what other time in the last 2,000 years would be?" he asked. Whatever one makes of that question, it is highly unlikely anything in the archives could answer it.
Second, another plank of the anti-Pius XII platform is based on counter-factual history, meaning speculation about what might have happened if Pius XII had zigged rather than zagged. What would have happened, for example, if Pius had publicly excommunicated Hitler? Critics say the Nazi machinery might have ground to a halt, while defenders say greater persecution would have been unleashed upon both Jews and Catholics. No one can say for sure, and nothing in the archives can resolve such a hypothetical question.
Third, even after the archives have been scoured, if that examination yields nothing negative about Pius XII, there will be lingering suspicion in some quarters that the Vatican might have destroyed records that could taint the pope's memory.
"The Jesuits who published the 11 volumes have already been in those archives," Sanchez said, reflecting a view widely held among some scholars. "They might have sanitized the records."
To be clear, I am all for opening the archives. If possible, I would fling the doors open tomorrow. My point is rather that it would be naĂŻve to believe that doing so will resolve the debates over Pius XII.
* * *
A brief footnote on the archives.
In his speech on Tuesday, Bertone made a somewhat usual request. Referring to those requests for help from across Europe which have still not been indexed, Bertone said: "Maybe it would be possible, with the ad hoc help of some charitable foundation, to catalogue in a brief amount of time these papers which are stored in the Archives of the Holy See!"
According to experts in Jewish-Christian dialogue, it was the first time a senior Vatican official has publicly suggested one reason for the time lag in opening the archives is a lack of financial resources.
Fisher said, however, there is a precedent for Bertone's request.
After a commission of Jewish and Catholic scholars created to study the 11-volume set of material published by the Vatican fell apart over demands to see the rest of the archives, Fisher said that a fund-raising luncheon was held at the residence of Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, head of the U.S. bishops' committee on relations with Jews. Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mejia, the Prefect of the Vatican library, was in attendance, and the idea was to raise money to be able to open the archives more quickly. In fact, Mejia was later able to raise the number of archivists working on the project from two to ten.
This time around, Bertone might find support from an unlikely quarter.
"If that's the issue," said Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, referring to a lack of money in the Vatican to speed things up, "we should have an emergency meeting and figure out ways to make it happen."
* * *
Those with reservations about Pius XII's beatification often ask the rhetorical question, "What's the rush?" Their counsel is to wait until passions have died down, and his case can be considered more objectively.
While I understand that instinct, I think it badly underestimates the nature of the passions involved in this case. When a community invests a considerable portion of its identity in keeping alive the memory of some historical wrong, the passage of time often does very little to dim its passion. Anyone who has ever spent time in the Balkans or the Middle East understands the point.
For example, when Pope Benedict XVI said on May 13 in Brazil that the arrival of Christianity in the New World had not been an "imposition" upon native cultures, the passage of 500 years did not noticeably diminish the outrage of the descendants of those indigenous persons, or their sympathizers. To take another case, when Pope Pius IX was beatified in 2000, some 152 years had passed since Pius IX re-consigned the Jews of Rome to their ghetto after briefly liberating them in 1848, and 142 years had gone by since Pius IX took six-year-old Edgaro Mortara from his Jewish family and refused to give him back. The distance of a century and a half did little to dampen Jewish protest over those incidents.
To take a counter-factual example, if there were a serious move today to canonize Pope Urban II, who launched the Crusades and who was beatified in 1881, does anyone really believe the passage of 1,000 years would soften reaction in the Islamic world?
With Pius XII, we're talking about the Holocaust, the most horrifying crime in human history to date. It seems improbable that 100 years, or even 300 years, will do much to abate passions, in the same way that the memory of slavery remains a deep scar in America today. In that light, perhaps the real question is whether anyone gains by allowing those passions to fester, other than those who have made careers out of either vilifying or rehabilitating Pius XII.
* * *
Bertone's 3,000 word speech on Tuesday centered on six arguments:
Reactions seemed to vary, according to how observers were already inclined to see Pope Pius XII.
"On the whole, I thought it was excellent," said Fisher of the U.S. bishops' conference. "Newspapers tend to pick up on the books damning Pius XII, while the ones defending him can't get reviewed. The restoration of some balance is therefore very helpful."
Nevertheless, Fisher quibbled with Bertone's assertion that the "black legend" about Pius XII took shape in the context of the creation of the State of Israel, saying it emerged only later with Hochhuth's "The Deputy" in 1963.
Fr. John Pawlikowski, an expert in Catholic-Jewish relations at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said that Bertone's choice of scholars to support his position weakened the force of his argument.
"The problem with the Vatican generally, and certainly it applies to Bertone's statement, is that they try to critique the [anti-Pius] extremists such as John Cornwell by using some very questionable defensive 'scholarship,' such as that by Sr. Marchione," Pawlikowski said. He cited Sanchez, Conway, and Rabbi Michael Marrus as examples of more "credible" authorities to whom Bertone might have appealed.
"Until they are willing to engage in a wholesale discussion of Pius XII during the Holocaust," Pawlikowski said of the Vatican, "the attempted defense of Pius through reliance on shallow and limited scholarship will fall on deaf ears."
Conway said that, on the whole, Bertone made some good points. Part of the criticism of Pius XII, Conway said, is based on an unrealistic conception of the power of the papacy.
"People sometimes act "as if the pope is a wonder-worker who could move his papal staff and produce miracles, such as saving six million Jews," Conway said.
Poupko said that Bertone's speech did not persuade him to drop his request that the Catholic church delay the beatification of Pius XII, saying that he hopes Catholic leaders "can understand the Jewish people's ambivalence."
In part, Poupko said, sensitivities about Pius XII are high because in the meantime, Jews have become accustomed to "a much higher standard" from Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II.
Poupko's reservations were clear.
"World War II was a time when Christians were called to bear a new cross, the yellow star," he said. "They were summoned to a new Calvary, the ghettoes and death camps." Such moments, Poupko said, require "prophets," while Pius XII was more a "politician."
Sanchez said he generally agreed that Pius XII has been maligned, but said that there are elements in Bertone's argument that seem dubious. For example, he said he has not come across any reference to either the Italian or the German forces cutting off electricity to Vatican Radio or denying paper to L'Osservatore Romano, as Bertone suggested. Both Sanchez and Conway said they had never before heard the claim that Pius XII asked for permission from the Germans to enroll an extra 4,000 people in the Palatine Guard in order to save Jews.
Sanchez said there are "legends" on both sides of the debate.
"I think there is a 'black legend' about Pius XII," he said. "But others subject him to enormous praise for everything he did. The truth is in between."
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
This is all very
This is all very interesting. There are many arguments and points either way. In my view it seems that a pope is one who is expected the illustrate high sanctity and unless the case is such as would receive unanimous approval, he should not be proclaimed a saint. I agree that the controversy will probably remain unresolvable and should remain unresolved. It seems to me to be inappropriate for the Vatican acting as the church to declare its own past leaders to have been saints.
Open the archives, so the
Open the archives, so the world can stop fighting about what is or isn't there!
There has been pressure for decades for the Vatican to do so, to silence critics of Pius XII who say the archives hide documents unfavorable to him. John Allen notes that 11 volumes of documents that Jesuit scholars have published from the archives have not changed the position of people on either side of this argument. He cites two reasons why he thinks that happened and why opening the rest of the archives still won’t resolve the controversy.
First, he says, the primary indictment against "Pope Pacelli" (as the Vatican Secretary of State calls him) is that he “failed to issue a straightforward public denunciation of National Socialism, or an unambiguous public appeal for Christians to rescue Jews.” Allen argues that since this criticism is based on what Pacelli did and did not do in public, the private archives will not sway the discussion.
Second, the other main indictment condemns actions Pacelli failed to try, e.g., publicly excommunicating Hitler, or meeting with Hitler, Mussolini, or both at once. Allen doubts that the archives can shed any light on how effective such alternatives might have been.
In light of the Holocaust and a perception that Pacelli favored Palestinian rights over establishment of the State of Israel, the Jewish critics of Pius XII are quite passionate. As Allen observes, it’s not as though the Vatican can wait a few more decades or centuries for their passion to subside.
It was just in April that Vatican Ambassador to the Holy Land created an ugly stir by threatening to boycott the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day state ceremony at the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem, because of an exhibit caption about the Pius XII controversy. The ambassador later attended, but Yad Vashem’s position indicates that Jews’ deep misgivings about Pacelli are not going away.
Given this, what does the Vatican have to lose by opening the archives? If Pacelli’s proponents are right, the archives should provide additional positive facts. If the Jewish critics are right, are the archives likely to confirm anything worse than they already fear?
Allen may be right on both of his points. But no one will really know until independent researchers scour the archives in their entirety. It remains possible that documents and other assets still not researched can shed more light on the rationale and motivation for Pacelli’s public silence, perhaps providing more clues as to whether it was benign, malicious or negligent. It remains possible that the unresearched archives might also illuminate whether Pacelli considered some of the alternatives critics wish he had and, if so, whether specific factors influenced him not to pursue them.
Allen notes that Cardinal Bertone’s overture about letting a charitable foundation organize the documents he says prove Pacelli’s assistance to thousands of individuals got an enthusiastic response fro Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman told Allen that if lack of Vatican resources was an obstacle to opening those documents for research, “we should have an emergency meeting and figure out ways to make it happen.”
Rather than rushing Pius XII to sainthood, the Vatican could make a much more immediate positive contribution to Catholic-Jewish relations by actively pursuing Bertone’s idea.
Canonizing Pacelli would certainly announce to the Jewish people and to the world at large that the church has dug in its heels on his culpability for the Holocaust. But it would also only solidify the opposition in its conviction that Pacelli was wrong and the church since Pacelli has refused to admit it.
The result of opening the archives may be what Allen expects. But other outcomes remain possible. So long as that is the case, the only way to rule them out is to open the archives. Issues undoubtedly will remain afterwards. But at least the overarching issue—what secrets the archives may hold—will finally be laid to rest.
For more on this, please see my blog at http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com/
Pius XII oversaw the
Pius XII oversaw the greatest expansion of the Church in her history. He also defined the Marian doctrine of the Assumption.
Re the Jews: Roman Jews donated a large cross to Pius XII. It is now in the Papal Gardens at Castelgandolfo, specifically in the ruins of the dining hall of the Emperor Domitian. I have seen it on two different occasions.
And the head rabbi in Rome, Israel Zolli, became a Catholic after the war, taking the name of Eugenio, in honor of Pius XII (who was Eugenio Pacelli).
I commend Mr. Allen for his
I commend Mr. Allen for his insightful anaylsis of this controversial issue. He makes a persuasive case that the known facts logically mitigate in favor of proceeding with the cause for Pius XII with all due haste. It is fairly obvious that his cause has been delayed for what are essentially political reasons - perhaps those responsible would prefer to think of them as ecumenical reasons. It speaks well of Pope Benedict that he has gotten this process un-stalled and indeed back into the news, however I doubt that he is willing to cut any corners to meet any particular deadline. The archives will eventually be available and Pius XII can and probably should be canonised before then, but the Congregation for Saints certainly has an even-more-serious-than-usual responsibility to get it right and avoid glossing over anything that is legitimately dubious.
If I may be permitted a further remark, I'd note that the comments by Antonius bring up some important perspectives which are definitely relevant here.
God blessed the last eleven
God blessed the last eleven popes. They compare well with any other string of eleven popes that church has had. To do better you would have to go back to the first eleven, almost all of whom were martyrs.
Pius XII was an excellent pope. Unlike his flamboyant successor (John XXIII: Roncalli) he minimized papal ceremony and lived a very austere life. The reforms of Vatican II would not have been possible without the foundation he built particularly in the areas of bibical studies and the liturgy. He opened a dialogue with science and modern culture that was extremely fruitful.
My impresssion of him was that of a highly intelligent and very saintly man. I personally do not have the knowledge to judge whether he is a saint.
Politically, he had to contiually seek a path that would have the greatest effect with the least harm. Hitler was too smart to kill him, knowing that would make him a martyr and galvanize the opposition. Hitler's threat was never to move directly against the pope but to retaliate by stepping up the persecution of Jews and Catholics. The success of Pius XII's political policy is testified to by the unanmous acclaim and gratitude of the international Jewish community immediately after the war.
John Allen is right that delaying canonization will not defuse the polemics. The decision to canonically recognize his sanctity should be made on the merits of the case.
Dr. Malcolm C. Harris, Friends University
http://ex-corde-ecclesiae.blogspot.com/
I find it depressing that
I find it depressing that Rome should spend so much time and energy on what is really a peripheral issue. They should focus on proclaiming the meaning of Christ to the world today instead of canonizing Pius or anyone else (apart from Teilhard and Rahner of course!).Leaving aside the question of Pius' wartime conduct, I also find it hard to believe that many Catholics today would find Pius XII or the Church of his time as being attractive, inspiring or Christ-like.
Hi Everyone, All of the
Hi Everyone,
All of the hubbub to canonize more people leaves me with many wonderings. The amount of time and money spent to accomplish such, could not that time and money be better spent in catechizing people and feeding the hungry and clothing the poor who are Christians already, along with those who are not?
Haven't we enough writings and so ons saved from others who have and have not been canonized, including the wonderful lives of the already canonized saints - to last scholars for a lifetime of inquiries and searchings - let alone - who can ever exhaust the riches God has given to us in His Word, the Bible.
God knows who is in heaven and who did not make it. Jesus and His life are actually enough and more than enough for those who want to live their lives in the fullness of God.
Jesus' command was to go and teach all nations...! Hadn't we better get on with His work, and until it is completed, and leave the rest alone? In Christ's Love, Cobalt
Why are we focussing on Pius
Why are we focussing on Pius XII, this man of limited vision?
Why is the pressing question not" When will Roncalli (John XXIII) to be canonised?"?
Of the two, he is by far the man with greater Gospel actions and the sounder vision for the Church's role in his time and life.
Let us move on from church leaders who struggled to react to the great issues of their time, and respect those who saw the signs of the times and led the church in a creative response?
Mike from Australia
"We" are focusing upon Pius
"We" are focusing upon Pius XII because he was truly one of the giants of the 20th century, his was probably the second- or third-most significant papacy of the last century, and the controversies spawned by the well-known calumnies against his name make the entire topic "newsworthy". There is neither a quota nor a limit on canonisations, promoting the cause of Pius XII does not take "votes" or anthing else away from Bl. John XXII. Now if we want to discuss that man's candidacy, one must give serious thought to the serious contradictions between his unquestioned personal sanctity and his naivite and poor judgments which set in train a disster in the Church which has now lasted over forty years. Those "signs of the times" have led to far too many "creative" detours, blind alleys, and dead ends. Thanks be to God that there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel!
"if there were a serious
"if there were a serious move today to canonize Pope Urban II, who launched the Crusades and who was beatified in 1881, does anyone really believe the passage of 1,000 years would soften reaction in the Islamic world?"
DId anyone see the recent program on the Crusades on History Channel International? It focussed a lot of very snarky comments on Urban II. Visually he was presented as an ugly, hook-nosed, sneering and hectoring man with half his teeth missing.
Then there was program on the Black Death that showed another haughty Pope perched on his throne in full Pope regalia surviving because of flames all around him at Avignon while the peasants outside the walls died.
Why this obsession and antipathy to our Popes?
Urban II is known for having
Urban II is known for having launched the crusades, something which John Paul II subsequently apologized for. I don't see why this program (which I saw) should have portrayed him as a fine and just man when so many people were killed because of his actions. Other than his criticism of simony, in what way did he serve and proclaim the gospel of Christ?
Clement VI, one of the Avignon popes, enjoyed a wealthy lifestyle. What's more, he signed the ultimately disastrous bull, Unigenitus, which approved the sale of indulgences. Insofar as the Black Death, his behavior during it is something hotly debated among historians. In my opinion, his portrayal in the documentary was middle of the road, rather than simply "bad" or "good." Besides what I have mentioned, Clement is rememebered largely for his participation in various political struggles. Again, where was the gospel during this papacy?
Ed McManus: I disagree with
Ed McManus: I disagree with John on this one: Why rush to judgment when it will alienate the Jews on one hand, and all the information isn't in yet on the other hand. Scholars may think they know what is in those archives, but they can't be sure until they are examined. What if Pius XII was canonized and then the world learned some new information that put him in a false position? What then?
Pope Urban has waited patiently since 1881. There's no need to put a priority on Pius XII.
P.S. Where the Vatican's "Devil's Advocate" stand on this one? Isn't it his job to make sure everything is perfect before any action is taken?
After over three hundred
After over three hundred years, John Paul II got rid of the "Devil's Advocate" in 1983.
You really lost it this
You really lost it this time, John. The Church should do one of two things: Delay forever (a familiar tactic) any decision on Pius XII; or, courageously admit (a rare occurence) Pius XII's and the Church's failure to challenge the Holocaust.
Both Rabbi David Dalin's
Both Rabbi David Dalin's "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" and Ronald Rychlak's "Hitler, the War, and the Pope" as well as his "Righteous Gentiles" offer ample evidence that Pius XII (and some other Catholics) did quite a bit to challenge the Holocaust. That does not mean that Pius did enough to merit sainthood, but he did do quite a bit.
Two comments on this
Two comments on this article. First, The question of Pius XII' merit for sainthood. There seems to be a difficulty seperating who he was, as a man; only to be,of course, authentically judged, by God: and, what he was, as a Pope. Apparently, to be judged by the whole world. As a man, let us all agree, God alone knows and decides his eternal fate. As a Pope, it appears, the world not only knows and judges him, but quite easily makes the identification, of the Pope, the man, with the entire Catholic Church, transposing their judgements of this particular man, onto the whole Church, and, critically, vice versa. Easy enough logic. Well now, let's see, how does the world judge the Church during the reign of Pius XII?. Many people suffered and sacrificed; and many more didn't do sh^t! What else is new?.
Time and time again, the world is in crises. People are getting killed. An evil dictator, ripped from comic legend, actually DOES assume power and threatens the world. (don't just look beyond your borders). People, and let's get this straight, not just Catholics, but ALL PEOPLE of "good will", ponder whether it is "nobler, in the mind to suffer... or... takes arms against... ". And MOST of the time FEAR wins and we're too scared to stop aggression, to do something wrong, or anything at all, let alone become martys. And evil walks on. It happened in WWII, It happened a thousand times, a million times. It happens every day, on every schoolyard, in every office building, construction site, in the very halls of congress. Christians do NOT stand up for their faith and belief in Jesus Christ. They do NOT stand against evil wherever and whenever it appears. That is MY failure, that is, the failure of the Church, AND the failure of our Popes. Who cares if Pius XII is elected a saint, really? O Lord, give us a Champion of your will to lead your pilgrim Church to victory. Amen. My next comment:
A bit of a sea change. What is a saint? Why do we need to canonize, anyway? Who are we to aknowledge that a person is holy? My father,(d), was the most honest, faithfull man I have ever known. I believe, (how can one know?) he is in heaven. It would be ludicrous to present him for cononization. Why? You tell me. By the way, if you need a hero... try Jesus.
Personally I'll take the
Personally I'll take the '8th sacrament' and plead ignorance on this issue, and I have to ask the question "Why is it so important to the Church to canonize Pius XII? Let him rest in peace, and if he's in communion with the saints and angels, nothing we do here on earth changes that. If he's not, nothing we do here on Earth should change that. I say let sleeping popes lie.
No leader on the allied side of things really lifted a finger to help the Jews, at least in any public sense, until it was far too late and things had swung in the Allies favor. It may be that no one wanted to believe that the extermination of the Jewish race was happening at the hands of 'Christian' countries. Maybe the best thing for all sides is to reserve any judgement and just learn from all the mistakes. Nobody involved in the cause of the West against the various forms of facism deserves much credit for their 'public statements' opposing the butchery of the Nazis, or the Eustachi for that matter.
It makes little sense to me to hold Pius XII accountable for the guilt of the West, anymore than it does to hold him up for sainthood to expiate that guilt.
As a final point, I wonder why no one seems to be interested in the fact the Nazis also systematically killed untold numbers of Russians. The Vatican was strangely silent on this issue as well. Not all those millions of dead Russians were diehard godless communists. Maybe hundreds of years from now, this too, will merit discussion.
Had the Palatine Guard even
Had the Palatine Guard even been considered to be expanded by such a number, even -fictitiously-, I think it would have been noticed by one of the many thousands of people all over the world who specialize in obsessively researching the military history of the Second World War.
This being the first I've ever heard of it, I'm inclined to regard it rather dubiously.
If the controversy is
If the controversy is unresolvable, as you suggest, then surely that is an argument to leave him be. Catholic teaching is (is it not?) that whether or not the guy is "in reality" a saint is entirely unaffected by whether or not he is declared as such.
The balance then becomes between causing hurt and scandal on the one hand to the many decent people, Jewish and Catholic, who genuinely have doubts about his behavior and, on the other hand, the ephemeral gains of declaring sainthood. As I understand it, the gains of declaring Saints are claimed to be in providing exemplars. How does this play out with so controversial a figure?
For my own part, my unease about Pacelli is not so much his behaviour during the war, as his behaviour as nuncio, the concordat and the quiescence of the Catholic church in the rise of National Socialism, particularly of the self dissolution of the catholic Centre Party in the 1933 Reichstag and including the cooperation of the church in making church records available for the hideous tracing of blood lines.
Let's face it. The Catholic Church spent most of its history behaving abominably to Jewish people, as did Christianity generally. It would have been more remarkable had it done a volte face pre- the Holocaust. That it did so 25 years after (at V2)was inevitable.
A few thoughts: 1) It would
A few thoughts:
1) It would be great if the positio of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints on Pius XII's heroic virtues could be released for public study and commentary. Although not normal protocol, it would get to the real questions: was Pius truly heroic rather than cowardly, and virtuous rather than pusillanimous? For me, that's the real issue. It's obvious that Pius has been guilty of a gross caricature, pretending as if he did nothing in response to the Holocaust, that he didn't care about it, and basically that he abetted it. But even admitting that, was his response to it heroicly virtuous? Was he heroicly virtuous in other areas of his life as well? I hope the answers to these questions are yes, but I don't know they're yes.
2) This leads to Poupko's distinction between "prophet" and "politician," which is a deep insight and devastating sound-byte. But I think it is not sufficiently comprehensive of Pius XII's responsibilities. If it were a question of his being heroically prophetic and personally suffering martyrdom as a result, I think we could fairly expect it from Pius XII if he were genuinely saintly. But if it were a question of his being prophetic at the risk of the death of many of those for whom Christ had made shepherd and entrusted him to defend, then there's a different calculus. He had a responsibility to protect them. If he truly believed, because of his deep knowledge of Nazism from his time in Germany, that speaking out forcefully would dramatically increase rather than abate the suffering and death of Christians at the hands of the Nazis, then his silence — in the face of his own eventual vilification — would be heroic indeed.
3) That "eventual vilification" is my final point. I think the evidence is pretty clear that everyone — from the Nazis, to the New York Times, to the founders of the State of Israel, and more — understood what Pius was doing at the time, that he was condemning Nazism in the most prudent way he thought he could at the time. That's why he garnered hatred from the Nazis and praise from those who hated the Nazies. Much of the criticism of Pius' silence, I think, comes from those who presume they would have behaved with a different type of heroic virtue at the time if they were in his white shoes. This is at least anachronistic, if not outright inflated.
I agree that Pius XII should
I agree that Pius XII should be fast-tracked to sainthood. In my one-man stage show "O Papa!" a two-hour history of the popes in 20 characters, premiered at the Vatican-owned Tearo Goldoni in Rome, 1975, and subsequently toured all over the world for twenty years, I had a segment praising Pius for his efforts on behalf of the Jews, based on the records and memories of those holed-up in the Vatican during the war years. As a result, I was visited by the Princess Pacelli, Pius' sister, who came to thank me for exonerating him from the accusations of Hochhuth and others. I'm sure that once all the records are public record, including appeals to him to shut up about Hitler, because his attacks were only causing greater harm to those in harm's way, Pius will indeed be much better understood.
Pius the XII resided over a
Pius the XII resided over a church for 20 years immersed in Jansenism,Triumphalism,Mariolatry & heavy Legalism, which explains why John Paul II & some Vatican Officials wanted him canonised.Pius the XII threatened excommunication in the 1950s for people in Italy who voted communist but for catholics in Nazi uniforms cramming Jews in the death chambers or forcing jews(including children) to dig there own graves before being shot,absolutely nothing.He knew about it,he was told & he remained silent.Remember Perfidious Jew was to be found in the liturgy at mass round Easter. We need to bring back the ancient practice of canonizing people by popular acclaim.This canonization is supported mainly by persons who have never liked the reforms of vatican II.